I knew you would quote these recent bogus articles of more or less leftist "journalist"-activists, who deliberately wanted to misinterpret the conclusions of the very large DNA study in order to make Vikings more "inclusive".
Have you bothered to read the actual study or did you simply rely on ideologically motivated articles of third parties?
Here is the link to the original study:
You must be registered to see the links
That's not true and I assume you've taken this info from the articles about the study and not from the study itself. Genetically it also makes no sense because of the recessiveness of blondism. Gradually the percentage of blondism is reduced when interbreeding with more dark haired people.
But back to the main topic, the above mentioned study was disputet by some serious historians and archeologists for several reasons. First of all, the definition of a Viking grave was kept very much open: Everyone, who adopted the lifestyle of raiding coastal areas according to their burrial objects, no matter their ethnicity, was labeled a "Viking" grave.
Raiding neighboring coasts per boat wasn't something just the Nordic Vikings did. In fact many people in Europe living close to the sea did it. You can find coastal raiders everywhere in Europe during the early Middle Age. The problem is, when you label coastal raiders of different European origin "Viking".
The term Viking is old Nordic, therefore real Vikings were Scandinavians. But raiding foreign coasts wasn't exclusive to Vikings during this time. This is why they say: "Viking was a profession rather than an ethnicity". But you've got to differentiate between actual Vikings and local coastal raiders!
They even had and used pretty similiar equipment for their profession. Also the so called "viking sword" actually isn't a sword type exclusive to Vikings, it's also a Carolingian sword, because this sword type was widely used and produced across Europe and a valuable trade good.
Why do I mention it? Because in this study every grave where f.e. the "Viking sword" type amongst other "typical Viking" things were found as burial objects was labeled a "Viking" grave. Albeit finding an early medieval type sword in a grave says nothing about the ethnicity of the burried corpse.
So they took DNA samples from a rather large amount of graves, but it is very much debatable, if Nordic Vikings were actually burried there or simply local coastal raiders of a specific area. Hence if the premise is already that much botched, you will get quite diverse DNA findings, like suddenly most "Vikings" weren't blonde (I never said all Scandinavians were blonde, but the percentage is very high and used to be even higher due to recessiveness of blondism). Dark hairs being common in the samples, thats because
many of those taken DNA samples actually weren't from Nordic Vikings to begin with, but some local coastal raiders, who used similiar equipment! They shouldn't have applied the label "Viking" to those.
Example: they took dna from Viking era graves on the Orkey Islands and found out that the DNA was 85 % of local origin, not Scandinavian. Only a minority actually came from Norway, which most likely was the ruling class, inhabitating the island after having conquered it (of course there was also some intermixing with locals, just like there was influx of foreign DNA into Scandinavia due to female slaves they took from the Baltics, British Isles and mainland Europe). Anyway the inhabitants of Orkney can be considered culturally Norwegian during this time, because they were colonized by Norwegian Vikings. So it is possible to have a lot of non-Norse DNA in a sample from someone being drafted as a local into a Viking raiding party.
Out of this lots of leftist agenda newspapers made headlines like: "most Vikings had dark hairs" in order to make Vikings more inclusive and diverse.
To be clear, Denmark was the cultural center of the Viking world (of course there were also Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic Vikings), but Norway, Sweden and Iceland were peripheries compared to the importance of Denmark in the Viking world from which Danish DNA radiates into as the above mentioned study shows. So most other people being victim of Vikings rather got genetically "Danified" over time due to Danish Vikings taking their women and having offspring with them, rather than any other gene flow. The later medieval Normans settling in northern France also were of Danish origin genetically f.e.
Vikings did interbreed with different European people, but there were different models:
In England (mainly Danes) they settled in large numbers and also took Anglo-Saxon women, thus becoming English over time culturally, but due to the large Danish population influx, they remained a large amount of Nordic DNA in certain parts of England known as the "Danelaw" back then.
Orkney is a different example ("colonized" by Norwegians), where the ruling and most likely the warrior class was Norwegian, but most of the population remained their local (maybe ancient Pictish) ancestry, due to rather low numbers of Norwegian Vikings actually having settled there, despite ruling the island for centuries. So the inhabitants of Orkney became culturally Norwegian over time, but not genetically.
Greenland is another model (settled mostly by Icelanders), where Viking settlements show no evidence at all of interbreeding with native Innuit for so far unknown reasons. Maybe there were even racial reasons for this, because according to the sources about Vinland (refering to modern day Newfoundland most likely), the local native Americans were refered to as
"Skrælingar" (=weaklings) by the Vikings and looked down upon. Of course this isn't politically correct for modern day standards, but nevertheless those are historic facts.
Unlike most of the blockheads on this board, who give facepalms, because they envy someone with actual knowledge and suffer from their inferiority complex, I know a lot about history, archeology and even genetics. Comes with the job, but I won't go into details here, because it's not neccessary.
You know,
science nowadays produces a lot of
ideologically motivitaed bullshit:
View attachment 2794305
It's
up to you, to use your own brain and see through the ideologically motivated bullshit often published nowadays.
